North Dakota Judge to Order $345 Million Payment from Greenpeace Over Pipeline Protests
A North Dakota judge has announced his intention to order Greenpeace to pay damages expected to total $345 million in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline from nearly a decade ago. The environmental group contends it cannot pay this substantial amount, setting the stage for a legal battle that will likely escalate to the state's highest court.
Legal Proceedings and Damages Reduction
In court papers filed Tuesday, Judge James Gion stated he would sign an order requiring several Greenpeace entities to pay the judgment to pipeline company Energy Transfer. He had set that amount at $345 million last year in a decision that reduced a jury's damages by about half, though his latest filing did not specify a final figure. This long-awaited order is expected to launch an appeal process in the North Dakota Supreme Court from both sides, marking a critical juncture in this protracted legal dispute.
Last year, a nine-person jury found Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. liable for defamation and other claims brought by Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access. The jury determined Greenpeace USA was liable on all counts, including conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and tortious interference, while the other two entities were found liable for some of the claims.
Origins in Pipeline Protests
The lawsuit stems from the pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017, when thousands of demonstrators camped near the project's Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline as a threat to its water supply, sparking widespread activism. Damages originally totaled $666.9 million, divided among the three Greenpeace organizations before Judge Gion reduced the judgment. Greenpeace USA's share of that judgment was $404 million, highlighting the financial stakes involved.
Financial and Legal Implications
In a financial filing made late last year, Greenpeace USA revealed it does not have the money to pay the $404 million ordered by the jury or to continue normal operations if the judgment is enforced. The group reported cash and cash equivalents of $1.4 million and total assets of $23 million as of December 31, 2024, underscoring its inability to meet such a massive financial obligation. Greenpeace declined to comment on the judge's Tuesday filing, but Greenpeace USA interim general counsel Marco Simons reiterated that the organization could not afford the judgment.
"As mid-sized nonprofits, it has always been clear that we would not have the ability to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages," Simons said Wednesday. He added that the case is far from over and expressed optimism about the group's planned appeal, noting, "These claims never should have reached a jury, and there are many possible legal grounds for appeal – including a lack of evidence to support key findings and valid concerns about the possibility of ensuring fairness."
Broader Legal and Free Speech Concerns
Greenpeace has argued that the lawsuit is intended to use the courts to silence activists and critics and chill First Amendment rights. In contrast, the pipeline company has stated the lawsuit is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech. At trial, an attorney for Energy Transfer claimed Greenpeace orchestrated plans to stop the pipeline's construction, including organizing protesters, sending blockade supplies, and making untrue statements about the project. Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities countered that there was no evidence to support these claims, asserting that Greenpeace employees had little or no involvement in the protests and the organizations had nothing to do with Energy Transfer's delays in construction or refinancing.
Energy Transfer previously indicated it intends to appeal the reduced damages, calling the original jury findings and damages "lawful and just." The Associated Press emailed the company for comment on the judge's Tuesday action, but no immediate response was reported. As this case moves forward, it highlights ongoing tensions between environmental activism and corporate interests, with significant implications for legal precedent and free speech protections.
